Now For Something Completely Different on the Forums
God to me is an uncomfortable topic in which you cannot openly oppose people in their beliefs, lest you get some moralistic interpretation of someone else's abstract reality that applies solely to them and not perfectly, or even nearly to others. Essentially, God is whatever you want it to be, and is notorious for causing as-of-yet endless conflict all around the world.
Taking a more philosophical stance, though? There is no universal God, no entity or being to turn to when we die, but there is instinct and biological constructs to explain the necessity of the concept people place on the abstract reality that is God. Essentially, it makes sense that most of the world is, "spiritual," in some way, even more explainable would be the mechanisms that draw people to it-- such as the endless conflict it creates that I mentioned already.
God, to me, is nothing more than a human's ability to be paragon-like. In our attempts to make things better we create the concept of Godliness, and try to emulate that same manmade construct. In our guilt for failing to live up to our own standards, feeling shame for our ignorance, and suffering incessantly as human existence demands of us for growth, we create the antithesis that is Hell and a Devil.
I hope this is an appropriate answer.It is appropriate because that is the reality you have created for yourself. It is apparent to me that you have never had a true spiritual experience because those of us who have do not rely on faith but are secure in the knowledge of what we have experienced. Now please don't take this for a criticism of you. It is not. We all have our own realities and most of us are where we are supposed to be. Even the zealot Christian slayer, the Roman Jew Saul, had an experience that turned him into Paul the Christian zealot. Most peoples' experiences aren't that dramatic, however. So don't be surprised if you experience a life-changing experience. Or not. Blessings to you.
Deleted
Yeah, I'd heard others in the forums say that you were hard to get along with. Frankly I don't give a damn.
It's actually difficult to get on with anyone who has a belief in god, spirituality, etc. if one has no such belief.
It works both ways.
I see great separation views when people have opposing views. Whether it is liberal vs conservative, believer vs atheist, etc. people with deeply opposing views do not get along.
The side that has the least number suffers the most, because the majority packs against the minority.I think the response was to Kyler who has used foul language. MizB usually gets along with those of opposing views.
Oh, I didn't see that post. Thanks for clarifying.
No, it wasn't aimed at you, Tess. Sorry that wasn't clear.
It's okay. I always have such different opinions, and I have learnt that there are deep divisions.
Nothing is wrong w/having different opinions. It takes bravery to voice different opinions. Tess, be yourself, express your voice.
"Shove 'em where they count," is foul language? She should go shove her blessings in someone else's face. Don't project your own definitions on to my words if you don't want it to seem foul. Unless you mean the dump, in which case that was in reference to my post, and it was more tactless than foul; my kind of humor, as we all know, or not.
By getting along you must mean regularly bashing the beliefs of others without warrant, and getting ignored, lol. We must be witnessing two different sides of the same coin that is Bejabbers.Haha, you sure are an amazing troll. You picked the right phrase which implies you know exactly what it means. Also, I was not the only one, the first response was someone saying you are hard to get along with. That is true, no doubt the only reason I commented is that Tess thought it was meant for her. Otherwise, I usually ignore you too.
Trust me, I'm quite self aware on how hard it is to get along with me, that's why I offered no protest. I altered my behavior on the forums early in my stay on HP after watching you, ragged, mark, and all the other pretentious regulars; I just happen to take the opposite side of behavior for the sole purpose of garnering your inadvertent distaste. My juices flow best when under great scrutiny, it holds me to a higher standard and gives me the control to spit on standards or surpass them. To be honest, I like wallowing in the mud beneath the standards, though; take me conversing with individuals on the forums to begin with as an example.
As for your interpretation of things, whatever helps you cope. Have a big, "Yikes, bro," stamp from me! C'est la vie!Oh, me too as you see some of my conversations. The forums however are not scientific enough to give me that extra scrutiny, it's just a huge proportion of conspiracy theorists out here. I get that extra scrutiny through my interaction with others at work and from peer review processes while I work on my Ph.D.
Oh and don't worry about it, there's no distaste. It is just that I do not see any benefit from conversing with you. I do like poking one particular person because he seems like a deplorable human being from the way he speaks to others.So we are different portions of the same chaotic dinner plan; beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Good luck on your Ph.D. btw! As you can tell, formal education will always be far beyond me; I envy your dedication.
No, Kyler J Falk, you put words in my mouth. I said "spiritual experience." You said "religious experience" and got nasty over something I didn't say. To make matters worse, you used the phrase "religious empathy". I cannot relate to going to church and getting the holy ghost. I do get riled when somebody puts words in my mouth and then tries to use them against me.
Considering I wasn't addressing you, yet you still came to the defense of your beliefs, I'd say you were riled long before my input that is now gone forever. C'est la vie!
I dunno, Tess, I grew up in a household with a Christian mother and an atheist father. Any problems they (or we) may have had was never caused by religion or the lack thereof. Each gave the other room for their own beliefs. Seeing both sides of the religion story gave me the freedom to explore and make my own choice, and respect theirs. But Tyler was pissed off about misreading what I said anyway. I said "spiritual experience" he repeated it as "religious experience". There is a difference, in my view anyway. A spiritual experience, in my opinion can be anything from seeing a ufo to an out of body experience. And an atheist can react to either in his or her own way. I remember my parents seeing a ufo in the sky one day and both trying to point it out to me. I never did see it. It also didn't change either of their beliefs.
I don't know that seeing a UFO can be classified as a spiritual experience. I was flying in a plane once and watched one for about 10 minutes before I gave up. The next morning, it was headlines in the newspapers, and there were hundreds of photos of it.
My late father was approached about it because he was president of the astronomical society. He said it was balled lightening. I didn't agree with him because balled lightening doesn't hang about for 10 minutes.
I don't think that was a spiritual experience. Tens of thousands of people saw it.
Until recently, the dictionary defined spirituality as beliefs related to gods. These days I see a meaning that is more adjusted to what it usually means to people. "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."
I pretty much had secular parents. My father claimed to be agnostic. I went to a religious school and spent 10 years as an evangelical Christian, about 10 years as a Jew (I converted), and read everything from the Koran to the Vida. At one point I knew the bible as thoroughly as it can be known.
Today, I'm a hardcore atheist, and I have to say that when I meet people and they want to talk about spirituality and god, my inside cringes and I go into PTSD. My experiences were too harsh to want to be close to people who are religious. I also wonder what it is that makes people focus on spirituality rather than character.
So I'm admiting that there are people that I simply cannot speak to because when I present rational argument against their views, I am personally attacked. That goes for political view points as well.
I have spoken to those on the web who say that they get on with both. It's not something I can understand.I was raised a Catholic but left the religion in my very early 20s. My father was quasi-religious. My mother was a hardcore religionist-she came from a hardcore religious family. I see religion as schizoid. I saw Catholicism as a medieval, authoritarian religion which belongs in medieval times. I also viewed Catholicism as a misogynic religion which no thinking woman would want to belong to. I don't believe in any organized religion. I identify myself as a New Ager who believes in God- a God which is beyond limited, religious labels.
I, too, avoid religionists for I feel that they are fanatical & judgmental of those who believe differently than they do. They are also very narrow-minded in their approach to the world. They view the world as evil. They would be classified as schizoid if you ask me.What do you mean by schizoid, Grace?
Religious people avoid the world which they view as ungodly, even evil. They believe that the only authentic world is the religious world. They live by outmoded religious principles which they see as the only validity.
Thanks. That's really interesting. Didn't occur to me, but you're right. Trying to explain reality to them is a lost cause.
Reading your post, especially the last part, I'm reminded of how the left presents. Narrow minded in their approach, seeing the world as evil; fanatical and judgemental of those who believe differently. Attempting to form an inquisition to ostracize and silence those who think differently.
Is it that humans instinctively need some type of uniform belief structure because they lack the ability, or the interest, to individually parse right and wrong. Does the average person lack the back bone to think critically and live in accordance with their conscience; without the need for group approval?
By denying the existence of a deity, they put themselves into a position to allow the collective to redefine reality. Just as the out of step religionist denies the 'reality' perceived by the main stream accepted beliefs of the faithful who live peacefully in society.
I realize you posted this as a religious question but the political climate we live in reminds me so much of the environment I endured living in close proximity to a JW community I felt compelled to comment.Wow.
Interestingly the neurological science shows differently. It shows that physiologically, the brains of people who are conservative are extremely limited and incapable of complex thought.
I'm confused as to why the left sees the world as evil when it's actually Christians and Muslims that see the world as evil. And these people are normally conservative.
Please provide a scientific source for your view as I do mine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/ … h.16030051
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … fferences/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a … rientationBefore we could even have a discussion we have to agree on terms. The left is no longer associated with the term liberal. To be honest, the term conservative is not indicative of a fair definition of those who aren't left.
At this juncture, we'd be arguing apples and oranges, which would serve no purpose; nor would it speak to the points of my post.I agree. So let's define terms.
Can we also make those terms international as opposed to American only.
I have lived in America, in the Uk, in the EU, and in Africa. I have also traveled far further than that, so what I perceive as liberal and conservative may not be what you mean.
So, yes, important to define terms.I'm afraid the answer is no. The terms cannot be international. American political terms are quite different from the definition of the same terms elsewhere.
If you choose to discuss American politics you'll have to limit definitions to American definitions of the terms. I would consider my stand quite arrogant if I interjected my opinion into a discussion of British politics by insisting we use other than British understanding and terminologyYou made a statement that the left was incapable of critical thinking.
Well, science says that when dead people are dissected, then the brains of people on the right are physiolotically different to those on the left, and when EEG is used, when people on the right are thinking, it's the primitive brain (amygdala) that responds, and when people on the left are thinking, their grey matter lights up.
In other words, people on the right respond on instinct - their basic concern is survival, while people on the left think the entire matter through, as can be seen from the activity in the brain.
So if you want to define what is left and what is right, feel free. It does not change the science.
And the science is at complete odds with what you have said - that the left is incapble of critical thinking. People on the right have no idea what critical thinking is.
Please give me an example of critical thinking of a person on the right. I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying.Very interesting discussion, Tess. Where in this does the "God gene" come in? Or does it affect either party?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/
Which of these people would contain the God gene if such a gene exists?The particular link you gave me gets its information from a non-majors course at university. I would assume that anyone in that class would be interested in spirituality. So the course is biased. What do they call it? Confirmation bias.
That said, the hypothesis (not theory) that there is a god gene needs yet to be proven.
So I'm going to go back to the root of the hypothesis.
My data comes from this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
A hypothesis is an idea for an investigation. Before one can prove something in science, one must ask a question. Then all sorts of methods are put forward to try to answer that question or prove that hypothesis. When it is proven, then it is called a theory.
So the god gene remains a hypothesis - it has not been proved.
I'm going to quote from the article.
"The research uses the self-transcendence scale developed by psychologist Robert Cloninger to quantify spirituality using three sub-scales: "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity, such as reading); "transpersonal identification" (a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe); and "mysticism" (an openness to believe things that remain unproven, such as ESP). Cloninger suggests that taken together, these measurements are a reasonable way to quantify (make measurable) an individual's propensity to spiritual."
"The self-transcendence measure was shown to be heritable by classical twin studies conducted by Lindon Eaves and Nicholas Martin. Their work demonstrated that approximately 40% of the variation in self-transcendence was due to genes. By contrast, specific religious beliefs (such as belief in a particular deity) were found to have no genetic basis and are instead cultural units or memes. Similar conclusions were drawn from studies of identical twins reared apart."
Well, that would certainly explain why I believed in god for so long.
I read for at least 5 hours every day - totally addicted, and I seldom hear anything else when I read. I definitely feel a strong connection to the universe (at one point I thought that was god), and, of course, because so many people were telling me that there was a god, I believed it.
It took me a tremendous trauma (PTSD) and most of my life to stop believing it, and that's with the advantage of being able to slow my brain waves down to theta (where one somehow or other is more connected to experiences 'psychic phenomena.' Of course, I am absolutely willing to believe that anything experienced in that state is delusional - so don't quote me. My point is simply that I had a strong inclination to believe in gods.
Until it didn't work.
Until it destroyed me.
Until it became obvious that it added nothing to my life.
Until it became such a strong negative that I avoid people who have strong religious beliefs.
Interestingly, I am probably more positive than negative, although I simply believe I'm a realist. Or maybe I should believe what my natal chart (astrology) says - that nothing will ever destroy me because I have some inherent strength or that I was a child prodigy, plus gifted to the point of genius in writing, and that needed no further learning in psychology because I was born with full knowledge or that I could work in the spiritual world that way other people could work with their hands in the real world, or that I had a highly developed eye for the arts, or all sorts of other things based on my date, time, and place of birth.
Fortunately by the time I read that, I was, already on the path to becoming an ardent disbeliever.
Then, again, according to Chinese astrology, I'm a metal rabbit with a dragon rising sign (and according to that, I'm goiing to make money this year).
And then there's Myers Briggs which makes me a female INTJ (.8% of the population - the rarest of all). Or to put it the way a doctor put it after giving me 5 or 6 hours of tests - I fit all the rare categories, including genius, high objectivity, the ability to accurately figure things out without proof.
MizBejabbers, I have been told so many things in my life, but here I am - autistic (Aspergers), a failure, neve having achieved anything in my life. I struggle to earn an income, I don't fit in anywhere, and if there ever was a god, he most certainly ignored me.
These things are all interpretations of things we don't understand and can never prove. They explain the world to some people.
For me, I think that we are microdots in a universe so vast that we are completely without meaning. I don't believe our lives matter. I don't believe that good deeds cause one to be rewarded in any way. I don't believe there is a hell or a life after death. I believe we die and our lives were totally immaterial.
I retain only a deep sense of gratitude that I was able to learn and experience all that I have. When I die, there will be a sense of relief that there is no more pain.The particular link you gave me gets its information from a non-majors course at university. I would assume that anyone in that class would be interested in spirituality. So the course is biased. What do they call it? Confirmation bias.
That said, the hypothesis (not theory) that there is a god gene needs yet to be proven.
So I'm going to go back to the root of the hypothesis.
My data comes from this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
A hypothesis is an idea for an investigation. Before one can prove something in science, one must ask a question. Then all sorts of methods are put forward to try to answer that question or prove that hypothesis. When it is proven, then it is called a theory.
So the god gene remains a hypothesis - it has not been proved.
I'm going to quote from the article.
"The research uses the self-transcendence scale developed by psychologist Robert Cloninger to quantify spirituality using three sub-scales: "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity, such as reading); "transpersonal identification" (a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe); and "mysticism" (an openness to believe things that remain unproven, such as ESP). Cloninger suggests that taken together, these measurements are a reasonable way to quantify (make measurable) an individual's propensity to spiritual."
"The self-transcendence measure was shown to be heritable by classical twin studies conducted by Lindon Eaves and Nicholas Martin. Their work demonstrated that approximately 40% of the variation in self-transcendence was due to genes. By contrast, specific religious beliefs (such as belief in a particular deity) were found to have no genetic basis and are instead cultural units or memes. Similar conclusions were drawn from studies of identical twins reared apart."
Well, that would certainly explain why I believed in god for so long.
I read for at least 5 hours every day - totally addicted, and I seldom hear anything else when I read. I definitely feel a strong connection to the universe (at one point I thought that was god), and, of course, because so many people were telling me that there was a god, I believed it.
It took me a tremendous trauma (PTSD) and most of my life to stop believing it, and that's with the advantage of being able to slow my brain waves down to theta (where one somehow or other is more connected to experiences 'psychic phenomena.' Of course, I am absolutely willing to believe that anything experienced in that state is delusional - so don't quote me. My point is simply that I had a strong inclination to believe in gods.
Until it didn't work.
Until it destroyed me.
Until it became obvious that it added nothing to my life.
Until it because such a strong negative that I avoid people who have strong religious beliefs.
Interestingly, I am probably more positive than negative, although I simply believe I'm a realist. Or maybe I should believe what my natal chart (astrology) says - that nothing will ever destroy me because I have some inherent strength or that I was a child prodigy, plus gifted to the point of genius in writing, and that needed no further learning in psychology because I was born with full knowledge or that I could work in the spiritual world that way other people could work with their hands in the real world, or that I had a highly developed eye for the arts, or all sorts of other things based on my date, time, and place of birth.
Fortunately by the time I read that, I was, already on the path to becoming an ardent disbeliever.
Then, again, according to Chinese astrology, I'm a metal rabbit with a dragon rising sign (and according to that, I'm goiing to make money this year).
And then there's Myers Briggs which makes me a female INTJ (.8% of the population - the rarest of all). Or to put it the way a doctor put it after giving me 5 or 6 hours of tests - I fit all the rare categories, including genius, high objectivity, the ability to accurately figure things out without proof.
MizBejabbers, I have been told so many things in my life, but here I am - autistic (Aspergers), a failure, neve having achieved anything in my life. I struggle to earn an income, I don't fit in anywhere, and if there ever was a god, he most certainly ignored me.
If any of this stuff was true, surely I would have been in a very different place? All of it is just an attempt to understand and to classify what we don't fully grasp.
These things are all interpretations of things we don't understand and can never prove. They explain the world to some people.
For me, I think that we are microdots in a universe so vast that we are completely without meaning. I don't believe our lives matter. I don't believe that good deeds cause one to be rewarded in any way. I don't believe there is a hell or a life after death. I believe we die and our lives were totally immaterial. Mostly, at this point, I only respond to the material world. I have no trust or belief in anything else. It just led me astray, and it most certainly never comforted me, so I'm not sure that the hypothesis of the god gene that it makes us not give up fits in.
I retain only a deep sense of gratitude that I was able to learn and experience all that I have. When I die, there will be a sense of relief that there is no more pain.Thank you. I don't have the patience to read and analyze all of that. You certainly are an interesting person. I think most psychology, astrology, and any other "ology" is man's attempt to explain himself and the universe. As you say, it's all just a hypothesis. I have PTSD also, which limits my patience. I am curious about something though, and I'd like opinions on it. Can an ENTJ change into an INTJ? I started out as an ENTJ, but after some experiences and having my thyroid removed, I am an INTJ. Don't like to be around people anymore. A friend of mine is studying transpersonal psychology (soon to get her masters), and she says the same thing happened to her, but she can't explain it either.
Yes, it would be possible.
Introverts have more sensitive brain structures - they can't take a lot of noise. It has nothing to do with shyness or fear or some negative character trait. It is simply that the human brain is shielded from all the noise and activity around it, but introverts are less shielded.
That's why they prefer to be on their own. The noise drains them. They're perfectly capable of making friends, and most aren't shy at all.
If you had your thyroid removed, it's possible that some hormones were affected, and as we don't know how everything in the body works, it's quite possible that something of that op affected the senstivity of your brain to stimulation. If how you become over-stimulated more easily, you will shy away from people - making you an introvert.
I'm sorry that I wrote too lengthily. I was trying to explain how much bs we all hear about where we come from and what we are and how everything works, and that the only stuff I now accept are things that are tangible. I have been misled to often. And it hurt and harmed me.
Thank you for posting the links peaking my curiosity as I read their abstract or introduction. I also found articles sharing the state of peer review has not been done. I noticed the third article did use the term 'extreme political ideology' causing me to ponder shades of the spectrum. Yet, I will look further as time allows.
There are more scientific abstracts in British Medical journals. I just didn't have time to google them. My point is simply that these differences exist in the brain, and that there is a direct correlation between the structure of the brain and one's political beliefs.
By denying the existence of a deity, they put themselves into a position to allow the collective to redefine reality...
I read this sentence over and over and still don't understand it.
What is it that you try to say? What collective? Redefine reality.. compared to what?I think I would like answers to that as well.
There is no reality in believing in god, and the implication here is that if one denies that there is a god, then one denies reality. But who is the collective?
The American Psychological Association think that belief in God is a mental illness.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/b … 015-07-20#
So does the Royal College of Psychiatry
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default- … ditedx.pdf"There is no reality in believing in god..."
Interesting statement. Although I guess I'm classified as an "atheist" under todays definition, I refuse to say "There is no God" because 1) the definition of God changes with the person and 2) I have zero proof. Can you support your statement with something besides "I think it's true"?Believing in anything without evidence is not an indication of reality.
If someone goes through a doorway and there is no door attached to it, but they believe there is a door, that is certainly not an indication that they are in touch with reality.
Same thing with God.
Reality means something is tangible, real.
God is intangible. You can't touch him. You can't see him. You can't hear him - only in your imagination. That's it.
I would agree with you (miracles happen) that one can't really say there is no god, and, for me, that's only shorthand for "There is no scientific evidence for god."
By scientific, in case you're not familiar with the scientific methodology, it means one must be able to measure in some way, and to be able to run the experiment over and over again, and the same thing must happen.Yes, I am familiar with the scientific method and methodology. Unlike most on these forums my degree is in the sciences (chemistry).
But there are lots of things not "tangible" by your definition. A photon, A black hole. An electron. Space itself. Time (is it just a figment of our imagination or very real?). Dimensions beyond the three we can see. The molecular bond between two atoms. Strong and weak nuclear forces.
All are very "real", but we can't see them, can't touch them, can't hear them. Can only assume they are real because of how they interact with things we can see, touch, etc.
And the believer will tell you, loudly, clearly and without any doubt, that their God is quite detectable by the same method; by the results of what He does. The same way a friend will tell me that her house is inhabited by ghosts; from what they interact with.
But I accept your "shorthand"; while sloppy use of language, clarification has cleared up the point.I believe I used the word measurement as in 'measure in some way'? I also said the scientific method? How do you think we know that there are atoms?
Do you doubt there are atoms, as you doubt there is a God? I don't.
You studied chemistry and you're telling me you equate your belief in atoms with your belief in god?
I don't think so.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151120 … l%20atoms.
https://www.space.com/how-did-we-discover-atoms.html
You can further google it or, if you're still in touch with your chemistry professor, ask him.
I'm toot ired to go into thsi - for the umpteenth time.I didn't mention belief (and certainly not any I might have) - I asked if YOU doubted atoms with the same kind of doubt that you doubt a God. That was in response to your own question as to how we know there is an atom. It was also in response to the idea that only things we can see, touch or hear can be known to be "real".
Perhaps it is rooted in the use of language; scientists are taught to forego not only the flowery communication of the poet but also the sloppy use of language seen in most people. Keep communication as succinct and direct as possible; say, as much as is possible, exactly what you mean and only what you mean. "There is no God" is not the same statement as "There is no scientific evidence of a God".
I asked you a question as to your beliefs; you should have known better than to turn it into a comment on my beliefs or even to something equating two different beliefs.It has nothing to do with beliefs. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 10 years. I went to a church school for 5 years. I spent decades studying these things. I prayed for decades. There was no response. Over a period of time, I just came to realize that there was no answer to prayer, and that meant of of three things.
1. There was a god and he didn't care/wasn't interested
2. There wasn't a god.
3. There was a god, but he was evil and just liked to watch people suffer.
Through a process of deduction, I arrived at the conclusion that there wasn't a god. I saw no evidence for the existence of one.
So what has belief got to do with it.
I said I'm an athiest. Please accept that.But Tess, I do accept that! I followed much the same path, using much of the same deductive process and arriving at much the same conclusions.
The only real difference is that I find that there is probably no god, while recognizing very clearly that lack of evidence of a god does not mean there isn't one (the major gods of the world are defined in such a manner as to make them impossible to detect). Only that the probability is high that it doesn't exist - again, perhaps the difference between one trained in the sciences and one that was not.
As far as being an atheist, when I grew up "atheist" meant someone denying the presence of a god. "Agnostic", on the other hand, mean someone that did not know if there was a god or not; I was an "agnostic", then. But language is not static, and meanings change; it seems that atheists now do not know if there is a god or not, so I must be an atheist. I don't know what the label is for a person that declares knowledge that there is no god. "Ignorant", maybe, as no one can have that knowledge and they must not understand the difference between "opinion" and "knowledge".Again, we come back to shorthand.
When an atheist is speaking to someone who is a fundamentalist, and they have had the same conversation for 20 years, maybe initially, they expressed it in long, detailed words, but after a time, it just becomes damned frustrating having to say the same thing over and over agian.
It takes too much time and energy.
So one just says, "There is no god." End of conversation. One doesn't wish to continue the conversation.
Of course, if one were willing to invest time one could go through all the deductive reasong, etc. then one will statements like.
There is no evidence for a god
There is no evidence for a personal god
There is a highl probability, based on no visible evidence, that there is no god.
Shorthad is"There is no god."
A - Gnostic - means withoug knowledge
A-Theist - means without God.
Essentially athists are without god and without knowledge of god.
Most atheists I know will tell you that they are both agnostic and atheist. Of course, I'm agnostic, but I'm aslo atheist.
Then there's the invisible elephant in the room argument. Why does someone who insists there is an invisible elephant in the room tell me I have to prove that there isn't an invisible elephant in the room?
Isn't the onus to prove something on the person who postulates something?As I said, meanings have changed since I was religious. The label that used to mean "There is no god!" now means "I don't know". Personally, I find it unfortunate, because the older meanings were quite specific (scientific
) whereas the new ones are not.
"Isn't the onus to prove something on the person who postulates something?"
LOL That's what started this conversation; your postulate (although no postulate at all, but a statement of fact) that there is no god. I ask you what you are using for evidence and it became this.
As far as using personal "shorthand", undefined to the general population, I would prefer to hear "I don't think there is a god" rather than "there is no god", for the reasons stated. Perhaps, if one wishes to debate, "I find no evidence of a god" (usually a useless conversation, for the believer typically believes their opinions and conclusions are factual rather than opinion).Well, I guess your preferences are your own.
I'm willing to say there is no invisible elephant in the room either.
Or that the earth isn't flat.
Or that black isn't white
Or that trees don't grow on the moon.
In one of those cases would you insist that my phraseology be different. Now why is that?
And it's not personal shorthand. It's just shorthand. People shorten things because it's too much trouble to do longhand. Conversation on hubpages is not a dissertation or a thesis at some university.
I don't think believing in a god is a mental illness. God and religion is a strong meme. By meme, I mean the original meaning of the word. That is an idea that spread itself from brain to brain through an evolutionary process.
Memes are like genes. But they are not physical like genes, they are ideas. The same evolutionary process as with genes happens with memes. The weak memes live a short time and the strong mimes survive generations.
Religion is a combination of very strong ideas that are build into traditions. Something that goes beyond one generation.
Memes want to survive, and the best ideas molded by their environment survive. Religion is sticky. As the ideas that belong to a religion are taught to children from early on. And children are open to all kinds of ideas. When the ideas are coded into a child's brain it is very difficult for this human to ignore them. That's why many people who were brought up in a religious surrounding will still believe in a god, even if they have studied science and know that the world is not created by a god but evolved. Because as a child they were infected by a religious meme.
And memes are like a virus, they go from brain to brain and want to nestle and stay there, and multiply to other brains to survive.
In this way, you could say that religion is a disease but so are many other ideas like the international birthday song, or other songs, art, and habits.
I think a lot of people don't believe in God, but they are still infected with this concept that they were taught by their upbringing. And it's a sticky thing, difficult to get rid of. How many Christians aren't converted into Buddhism or New Age thinking, saying they don't believe in a god anymore, but....there is still something...or they still need a religious structure.I would agree with that. It's socialized beliefs.
Yes, it is quite apparent you don't give a damn about anyone's reality but your own. Religious empathy always seems this way, I'm afraid.
"I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
At least that excuse works for those who take a different, but equally-insensitive approach. It all depends on your flavor of forum bigotry, it would seem.
I'd toe the line like all you regulars if you were all worth any more than what I already offer.
God is nothing.It's just a matter of calming yourself.The human soul always needs support.They resort to God to support themselves.Look at any religion in the world. God does not exist, only the soul.There is practically no God.Spiritually, God exists.
God is pre-science. It's a theory to explain the world. But this theory is no longer valid. As we understand more and more about the universe, our world, and life, the God theory becomes obsolete.
God did not create the world in 7 days. This statement is just as ignorant as saying that the world is flat.
The evolution theory of Darwin is one of the most proven theories out there. Believing that God created life in a single day is just nonsense.
You do not need a God to tell you what is good or wrong. Millions of people live great and good lives without any God.
So to me, God is just a fantasy. A concept that's made up by man but does not exist.There is another thought I want to add here.
I think the three main Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) made a big philosophical mistake. And that is to separate humans from the rest of nature.
“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
This changed our idea and relationship with nature. The disconnection of nature gave us the moral right to use nature without holding back. As It was given to us, we could do with it whatever suited us.
We alienated ourselves from nature, feeling superior.
The consequences of this philosophy led to industrialization, deforestation, melting icecaps etc In the end, it led to the by humans made climate crisis we live in today. As our connection with nature was lost. As it was ok to take from nature without giving back. To cut down a tree without planting one. To make products that are poisonous when used up and thrown away, like batteries and plastic.
It makes sense to see that the denial of the climate crisis is strongest by religious groups.
The problem here is that religion is only slowly changing, too slow to keep up with modern developments and ideas about the world. Still, it rules the actions of many people and governments, unwilling to change. Even if it's about life and death.
God is Mighty Triple O:
The Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent force behind all that exists.God is all. God is the existence. We are made from God's essence, even quantum physics is proving that. Science and religion are melding. Jesus hinted at that.
Nope. Quantum Physics does not prove that. Speak to any Quantum Scientist and they will tell you that.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 … nd-of-time
QUOTE: There are questions that have right and wrong answers as opposed to opinions, and we’ve unfortunately come to a place where many people don’t make that distinction.
One author (I've forgotten who) wrote a book about how quantum physics 'proved' god. It was his opinion - not a fact.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log … cs-Fallacy
Quantums physics does not provide the sceince.
Ugh, that is such a difficult question.
I think God is something like the structure of reality. And I don't even know what that means exactly.And I think you are on the right track. We're just humans and it does get complicated.
- ValKarasposted 23 months ago
0God is man's concept of a deity. Other than that -- God is unthinkable.
God is reality
God is ignored, misunderstood and unseen ...
Yet all around us
And within us.Existence must have started after a thought.
God's thought.
or maybe after lots of thoughts ...
or after a lot of thinking!
BTW How come the Bible never mentioned Dinosaurs?That is a good question, Kathryn. The Bible mentions unicorns 9 times, so why doesn't it mention dinosaurs?
Here's an example: Isiah 34:7 (KJV) And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Maybe it does and the problem is in man's translation. Job 40:15-20 (KJV) speaks of a "behemoth" made by God, and it doesn't mean anything mechanical. Could this be a dinosaur? The description sounds more like a dinosaur than a mammoth. I looked at more modern translations, but they aren't more informative.
The question was "Who is God to you?"
I suppose some would say Jesus is.
Is Jesus God to you?
If Jesus was God to every one of us, would the world be a better place?
How so?Well, I don't recall that Jesus ever claimed to be God. He called God "his father." Jesus to me was one of God's children just like the rest of us, except holier. Most of us can't live up to his standards.
Jesus was a perfected human in that He and God were one. He came to save us from ourselves and our ignorance.
He brought enlightenment
He leads the example.
What if we followed his example more widely and more closely.
Or are we?? if not by reading The Bible, but by following our hearts more closely?
Can we just follow our hearts or do we need to read the Bible?
Those who go to church are the lucky ones, I would say.God is a matter of faith only but it helps and that is the beauty in that.
A piece of fiction?
A none-existing fairy godmother?
Someone that primitive people used to explain the things they didn't understand?
A crutch for those who are struggling? There is a direct correlation between secularism and those countries which have excellent social support (Australia, Israel, northern Europe, the UK, etc.) and those countries where they have either no or little social support and belief in god.
There is also a correlation between high intelligence and high education and disbelief in god and average intelligence and lower education and belief in god.
Me? I'm an atheist - after wasting many decades of my life belife believing in god.
Of course, this does not mean a lack of experiences that I can't explain. It just means I chose to say, "That was an experience that I cannot explain with the limited tools and knowledge we have available today."It would seem you have inspired an entirely new thread discussing just this.
Well, that wasn't the intention. I was just answering the question. What is god to you? A piece of fiction.
... and yet we are a product of imagination as everything is.
And your evidence for saying that?
Just read your article on writing. Disagree. I was published by the time I was 10 years old. You can google my portfolio on line. It has the tearsheets. You can google my reviews as well.
Nobody taught me to write (well except my ABCs). I met enough famous authors during my 10 years at San Diego Comic Con and I spoke to many of them.
It's a talent.
I try to maintain an equitable tolerance level. And I try mightily to stay away from religious threads, but . . . the comments in this thread just scream to be addressed.
Since "God" can't, (or hasn't yet), be disproven, how can the 'there is no god' folks be so certain in their opinions?
Of course, many postulations attributed to "God" can be scientifically explained, but those explanations don't disprove the existence of God, only the singular attribution of an instance to God.
This discourse bothers me. I am not a believer, but the righteousness of non-believers bothers me more. You cannot disprove God's existence. You can only argue the reality of things attributed to God. 2=2 does not equal 4 in this argument.
There are so many positive things that I see in living a life of faith that I am envious that I cannot be a part of them, but there is so much wrong with the arguments of the 'there is no God' folks that I am even more glad that I am not one of them.
It is only my opinion, so file it where you wish, but I think the "there is no God" folks are so full of themselves that they should have a world of their own to live in. Geesh, if I were that egotistical I wouldn't be able to live with my great self.
GAbut the righteousness of non-believers bothers me more.
In general, the people who believe in a God are by far the people who want to convert other people. They have political parties, power structures, organize festivals, have sports clubs with only their kind of believers. Newspapers with their belief trying to spread the word. TV preachers, People who go door to door to impose an opinion and way of life. They have wars and kill because of a God
The religious people, all over the world. (and it is the vast majority of people I think) are the ones who talk the most about religion. In general, atheists never talk about atheism, only in a discussion.
So to think that atheists are overstepping their opinion in discussions is something that dwarfs in comparison with believers.
I think GA that if you compare the two groups, the atheists and the believers, and make a scale for "righteousness" and pointing fingers of how to live your life. The religious people will be by far more aggressive in their ways to convert and impose their will on others than atheists.
To me God would be love. Although I am Agnostic
Nature would be my religion
Nationalism is more dangerous than religion.
It is probably why you don't see me much anymore. The us Against them large groups is wasting too much of my peace and time. Better off privatization with good vibrations.
Related Discussions
- 70
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
by Cindy Vine 5 years ago
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth, who did their children marry?
- 282
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?
by JP Carlos 7 years ago
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?I've heard people try to convince atheists that there is a God by quoting the Bible or some other holy book. But quoting from such materials won't work. You have to believe in them before you can accept them as plausible...
- 35
Author of Books for Children Sentenced on Child Pornography Charges
by theirishobserver. 12 years ago
I have posted this thread in order to ask the question - can such criminality be eradicated - it has reached every level of society - what is wrong - what has went wrong - what can we do?Author of Books for Children Sentenced on Child Pornography ChargesThu, 08 Jul 2010 19:56:36 -0500Kevin Patrick...
- 68
What Would You Do If You Were Faced With Completely Irrefutable Evidence That Th
by Michael Ward 9 years ago
What Would You Do If You Were Faced With Completely Irrefutable Evidence That There Was No God?And I mean completely. As irrefutable as 1+1=2. I asked my friend about this and he had a mini-breakdown so I thought I'd ask you guys. Still not certain if I'm just unsatisfied with his answer or I'm...
- 34
Christianity and Some Issues
by casey_wlkr 13 years ago
I am currently dealing with a number of issues with Christianity and I have to say that they're very hard for me to get past. I am a Christian and firmly believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins but I really have some major hang-ups over some issues.EternityEither you believe that we...
- 72
Should we send illegal immigrants to a completely different country?
by sneakorocksolid 12 years ago
If we capture an illegal immigrant and we sent them to a different country, wouldn't it take longer for them to try again? What countries would you send them to?